There has been much sturm and drang over the state’s paid family leave proposal, including criticism from one of the state Senate’s more liberal members and a full-out assault by the state Chamber of Commerce.
And yet, the legislation has now passed both houses of the Legislature and is on to the governor, who has stated publicly that he plans to sign it into law.
Given the opposition from the business community and the way in which campaign cash tends to trump belief in the Legislature, the
The plan is pretty simple, according to The Star-Ledger:
The paid family leave act (A873) would allow workers to apply for up to six weeks off to care for a newborn or newly adopted child, or a sick parent, spouse or child, and collect up to two-thirds of their pay, up to a maximum of $524 a week. The benefit would be funded by an average worker contribution of about $33 a year, levied through a mandatory employee payroll tax.
Basically, it is similar to unemployment or disability insurance, money that workers will pay into a fund that will assist them in crisis situations. The state federal governments already grant family and medical leave. But that leave is unpaid and too often forces workers to choose between a paycheck and their families.
Consider the son or daughter who must take care of an ailing parent, or the parent dealing with an ailing child. As things stand, they could take the time without pay; under the new legislation, they would get some compensation — and, despite the business community’s complaints, it should do businesses little harm.
The biggest problem with the bill is that it had been revised to address the concerns of small businesses — while the bill would require companies with more than 50 employees to hold a position for a worker on leave, it offers no protection for workers at smaller companies — which is why Sen. Shirley Turner (D-Trenton) opposed it.
“This bill is discriminatory and unfair,” said Sen. Shirley K. Turner, D-Mercer. “Those individuals working for small employers are not given the same rights as everyone else, although they have to pay. … This is taxation without participation.”
I think the bill is a good start, but Turner’s criticisms must be addressed. Every worker must be given protection — especially if they are being required to pay into the new system.
South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick
E-mail me by clicking here.
Hank Kalet 